Social Psych: Exam 2

Source Characteristics

•Characteristics of the person who delivers the message; attractiveness, credibility, expertise, etc. - Attractiveness matters as a peripheral cue - Credibility, or a "combo of expertise and trustworthiness", can be effective for both peripheral and central routes to persuasion.

What is an attitude?

"An attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor" Eagly & Chaiken (1998)

What is Attraction?

(noun): 1. the action or power of drawing forth a response; 2. something that attracts or is intended to attract people by appealing to their desires and tastes. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 10th edition) -When people talk about attraction or, more colloquially, "chemistry" - what do they mean? -The above definition suggests that attraction is enmeshed in appealing to one's desires and tastes -Social psychology does not argue against this working definition of "attraction as appealing to one's desires and tastes" BUT I would like to suggest that social psychology proposes that some mundane (or less romanticized) factors may be at play in creating attraction.

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of Persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo 1986)

*Motivation and Ability Factors* Central: •Issue is personally relevant •Knowledgeable in domain •Personally Responsible Peripheral: •Issue is not personally relevant •Distracted of fatigued •Incomplete of hard-to-comprehend message *Factors Promoting Attitude Change* central: •Quality of Argument Peripheral: •Source attractiveness, fame, expertise •Number and length of arguments •Consensus The ELM posits that when a persuader presents information to an audience, a level of "elaboration" results. Elaboration refers to the amount of effort an audience member has to use in order to process and evaluate a message, remember it, and then accept or reject it. Specifically, the ELM has determined that when facing a message, people react by using either of two channels (but sometimes a combination of both, too) The model suggests that people express either high or low elaboration (that is, their level of effort) when they encounter a persuasive message. The level of elaboration then determines which processing route the message takes: central or peripheral. These are the three steps or stages of each route: central and peripheral, including: 1)the motivational and ability factors of the audience, 2)the route that is most persuasive to them, 3)and the factors that are most likely to promote attitude change Under the *central route*, persuasion will likely result from a person's thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented in support of an advocacy. When people process information centrally, the cognitive responses, or elaborations, will be much more relevant to the information. Because they'll thinking so much on what the message is telling them, a decision to agree with it will be because of the users' "work" (i.e., thought). They'll also be more likely to focus and ignore distractions as they seek their goals. When using the central (systematic) route to persuasion, people attend carefully to the message, and they consider relevant evidence and underlying logic in detail. People are especially likely to go through this route when the message is relevant to them, when they have knowledge in the domain, and when the message evokes a sense of personal responsibility. When going through the central route, people are more persuaded by high-quality messages. On the other hand, under the *peripheral route*, persuasion results from a person's association with positive or negative cues in the stimulus or making a simple inference about the merits of the advocated position. The cues received by the individual under the peripheral route are generally unrelated to the logical quality of the stimulus. The Peripheral route asserts that attitude change results from attention to "peripheral persuasion cues." These cues will involve factors such as the credibility or attractiveness of the sources of the message, or the production quality of the message. When processing peripherally, the individual may rely on heuristics and other rules of thumb when elaborating on a message. The person isn't scrutinizing the message for its effectiveness. In the peripheral (heuristic) route to persuasion, people attend to superficial aspects of the message. They use this route when they have little motivation or time or ability to attend to its deeper meaning. In this route, people are persuaded by source characteristics (such as attractiveness and credibility of the communicator) and message characteristics (such as how many arguments there are and whether the conclusions are explicit).

Function of Attitudes

*Utilitarian Function* •Alert us to rewarding objects/situations we should approach and to costly or punishing objects/situations we should avoid ---Food preferences ---Relationships ---Animals ---Etc. -What purpose do attitudes serve? -The social psychological literature suggests there are SEVERAL function of attitudes in our lives. -First, there is a utilitarian function—practical or useful—in our lives as it alerts us to things to approach or avoid -Take a look at the following slides and what see what things "pull you in" and what things "push you away" ____________________________________________ *Ego-Defensive Function* •Enables us to maintain cherished beliefs about ourselves and the world around us by protecting us from awareness of negative attributes and from facts that contradict our cherished beliefs or desires ---E.g., Terror-Management Theory -Second, there is an ego defensive function regarding the attitudes we have/harbor as they allow us to: ---Keep/maintain the positive "stories" about ourselves and our world by protecting us from negative pieces of evidence that contradict these cherished beliefs -Terror Management Theory (TMT) in many ways resonates with this idea of ego defensive function as people have the capacity to glorify their nation, for example, during times of existential threat (e.g., mortality salience via say a terrorist attack against one's country) so much so that they may be less willing to consider negative events and parts of national history (e.g., slavery, apartheid, genocide) that work against one's glorifying construction of their nation _________________________________________ EXAMPLE: (thanksgiving) In the context of the U.S., one such example is Thanksgiving... -A mainstream and arguably typical narrative is one that paints the holiday in a very Norman Rockwell-type of fashion which idealizes family, lots of food, love, etc. (see next slide) -One can argue even the mainstream historical depiction of the "origin story" of this holiday is one that tells a story of bounty, peace, and sharing of food amongst the indigenous Americans and Pilgrims -Another lens through which to view Thanksgiving and arguably more historically accurate account is one that highlights the extreme forms of belligerence toward Indigenous Americans that nearly wiped off the many tribes off the face of the earth and taking of their land. -One can make the case that an ego defensive function is at play here ____________________________________________ *Value-Expressive Function* •Help us express our most cherished values - usually in groups where they can be supported and reinforced ---Ex: political group membership ------Republican or Democrat ---These are our reference groups - groups whose opinions matter to us and that affect our opinions and beliefs -Third, there is a value expressive function to attitudes whereby they allow us to express/communicate values we hold dearly. -Usually, this is done in circumstances where there are other like-minded people who "share a reality" with your cherished beliefs and values (e.g., going to Allen Field House to cheer on the Jayhawk Basketball Team) __________________________________________ *Knowledge Function* •Help organize our understanding of the world •Guide how we attend to, store, and retrieve information •Makes us more efficient, but may lead us to be more biased social perceivers •Lepper, Ross, Vallone, & Keavney (unpublished data) •Who won the debate? Reagan or Carter (1980 election)? •Attitudes built upon knowledge but eventually come to shape knowledge -Fourth, there is a knowledge function to attitudes such that they act as "filters" to the world such that they guide how we attend to, store, and retrieve information. - Yes, this may make things more efficient BUT it also may bias our perceptions. -Recall the study where participants were told the video they were watching between a married couple included a woman who was either a librarian (or waitress in the other condition) and when they recalled info from the video the occupation of the female had a dramatic effect on what types of things were recalled from the same video. - The "take away" from this study is that attitudes are shaped by knowledge BUT they eventually come to shape knowledge.

Attitude Consonance

Attitude Consonance: •Consistency in the ABC's of an attitude •Affect, Behavior, and Cognition all match ---We need and strive for this Example: "I love ice cream, ice cream is delicious, ice cream makes me feel satisfied, I eat ice cream often"

Resisting Persuasion Attempts: Attitude Inoculation

Attitude Inoculation (McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961) •We can be inoculated against persuasion attempts much in the same way we are inoculated against disease •Small attacks on our beliefs will engage attitudes, commitments, and knowledge structures, thereby counteracting larger attacks we may encounter •People who are "inoculated" better resist persuasion - Another way in which we may resist persuasion is via "inoculation" (developed by William McGuire) -The metaphor that McGuire employs is one of inoculation against disease. We get a flu vaccine, for example, which exposes us to a small portion of the virus which then allows our immune system to become exposed to it and know how to fight it if we are exposed to a larger dose of it later on—thus inoculating us from the flu -He believes we can resist persuasion in much the same way. If we expose ourselves to "small" attacks on our beliefs we may inoculate ourselves to much larger attacks later on ______________________________________________ •1st assessed Ps' endorsements of cultural truisms to confirm pre-existing attitude ---"It's a good idea to brush your teeth after every meal if at all possible"; ---"The effects of penicillin have been, almost without exception, of great benefit to mankind" •More than 75% of Ps checked 15 on a 15-point scale to indicate agreement with truisms like those above _____________________________________________ •Second, came the "Intervention" ---Expose Ps to a "small attack" on their belief in the truism ---"Too frequent brushing tends to damage the gums and expose the vulnerable parts of the teeth to decay." ---Ps were asked to refute the attack by offering arguments against it •Or "NO initial attack" or "supportive arguments in favor of their attitude/truism" •Ps read a 3 paragraph attack on truism (1 hr or 7 days later) _______________________________________ Support of truism RESULTS: Before attack: 12.5 No initial Attack: 7 Inoculation Defense: 10.5 Supportive Defense: 7.75

When is each route followed?

Central route is followed if the audience is: •Motivated •Able to attend to the message ______________________________________________ Some factors affecting motivation •Interest •Personal relevance •Fatigue Factors affecting ability •Intelligence •Complexity of message If either motivation or ability is low, the peripheral route is followed _________________________________________ As motivation and ability increase, should get: •Increasing influence of central merits •Decreasing influence of peripheral cues

Several Types of Social Influence

Conformity •Changing behaviors to match the opinions or behaviors of the group norms Compliance •Changing behaviors under pressure from others (overt request) Obedience •Changing behaviors in response to direct order from authority -There are several types of social influence that we need differentiate between... -First, conformity—which is demonstrated by the candid camera clip you just viewed—is changing one's beliefs or behaviors to "match" the beliefs or behaviors of the group norms -Second, compliance is changing one's behaviors as a function of pressure from others SOMETIMES in the form of an overt request -Third, obedience is changing behavior as a response to a DIRECT order from an AUTHORITY figure

Fundamental Issue

Do Attitudes Predict Behavior? -A central issue within the literature on attitudes is whether attitudes predict behavior? -One of the reasons attitude researchers are so interested in understanding people's attitudes is that this should provide traction in understanding people's behavior -However, recall the "road trip study" we began with...there are obviously circumstances in which our attitudes are not in alignment with our behavior. -In addition, recall self-perception theory and the thesis that people intuit their attitudes from assessing their behavior in particular contexts.

Attitude Measurement

Likert Scale: A self report scale commonly used to assess people's attitudes. •Lists a set of possible answers with anchors on each extreme ____________________________________________ Texting While Driving Discussion Could it be because... •you were wrong about what you believe in? •you don't hold your belief/attitude as strongly as you thought? •you don't understand your belief and what it entails? •you acted hypocritically? -We try to rationalize and justify our actions to convince ourselves that they're consistent with our attitudes - If we cannot convince ourselves that our behaviors are consistent with our affect/cognition, we will have to change something (in the ABC's) so they match up

Reasons for mimicry

Reason 1: Ideomotor action (James, 1890) •Merely thinking about a behavior makes performing the behavior more likely •Brain regions responsible for perception overlap w/ those responsible for action Reason 2: facilitate smooth interactions to foster social connection •People tend to like those who mimic them •People who have been mimicked tend to engage in more prosocial behavior immediately afterward

Newcomb (1943): Conforming to Reference Groups

RESEARCH QUESTION: Do people change (or socially influenced) as a function of attending college? _____________________________________________ Conforming to Reference Groups •Bennington College Study (Newcomb, 1943) •Followed Female students from start to end of college careers •Women start out as conservative •Faculty are generally very liberal -The impact of the college experience was made famous by Newcomb's classic Bennington College Study. -The study followed female students—at the time of the study, Bennington College was an all female college—and how their political attitudes changed over the course of their college career -A majority of the women began college as politically conservative and entered a college environment that was predominantly comprised of faculty who were politically liberal ____________________________________________ RESULTS (vote for Roosevelt): Freshman: 34% Seniors: 85% -The first piece of evidence Newcomb brought to bear on the research question was who the college students (freshmen vs. seniors) said they voted for in the 1936 election. A few facts about the '36 election: ---Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) - Democratic candidate (Incumbent Democratic President) ---Republican candidate - Governor Alf Landon (of Kansas) ---Held in the middle of the great depression -Seniors at Bennington College were overwhelmingly more likely to have voted for the Democratic candidate (Roosevelt) for President than freshmen students at Bennington College -Keep in mind that freshman and seniors in the above graph are two distinct group of students (that is, they started at Bennington College in different years) _______________________________________________ Question: do these findings FULLY convince you that spending time in college changes students? HINT: There may be something else that is "different" between freshmen and seniors at BenNington. -Think back to research methods and one of the problems with non-experimental research methods is that even when we employ "naturally occurring" groups like "freshmen" and "seniors" the differences we may see might be accounted for by an alternative explanation like a 3rd variable which may be due to, in this case, cohort effects—the different times at which freshmen and seniors started school and that may be tethered/linked to socio-historical features of their different ages How about if we follow the same students from beginning to end of college? -A more persuasive set of data might examine the SAME students from when they start Bennington (i.e., freshmen) to when they are about to graduate (i.e., seniors) to see if their political attitudes do change. This way you examine the SAME students from when they first get to college to when they are about to leave. -This is what Newcomb did next... ______________________________________________ Conservatism of Entering Class of 1935 Over College Career RESULTS: 1935: 70% 1936: 42% 1937: 15% 1938: 11% -The above graph is based on self-report measures (of political conservatism) of the SAME female students over the course of four years. -The Y-axis indicates the percentage of students who self-reported they were politically conservative -In short, there is a significant downtick in female students self-reporting that they are politically conservative (or suggesting they are becoming more politically liberal) -This set of data is more convincing than the first. ____________________________________________ OK but how do we know that these changes are maintained after students leave Bennington? - Someone can argue that once students leave Bennington College where there may be a group norm to "appear" politically liberal on campus, in classes, etc. that they revert back to their "old ways" or "authentic self" and become politically conservative once again. -Newcomb was interested in seeing whether these more politically liberal ways had staying power in these students' lives once they left college campus ____________________________________________ Follow-up in 1960 and 1964 RESULTS: Bennington women % for JFK: 60% % for LBJ: 90% WHOLE COUNTRY: -Newcomb followed up with Bennington college students in the 1960 and 1964 elections to see who they voted for and whether they overwhelmingly voted for the Democratic candidate—the assumption being that politically liberal people would by in large vote for the Democratic candidate. -Keep in mind that JFK and LBJ were the Democratic candidates for President in '60 and '64, respectively. -He compared 3 groups: a representative sample of the U.S. (Whole Country), Bennington College Women, and Women (who were "matched" controls for Bennington Women) -The "whole country" group acts as a rough baseline to give us an idea of how people "in general" voted in those two election cycles -In '60 about half of people voted for JFK and in '64 about 60% voted for LBJ (so they skewed more democratic in '64) BENNINGTON WOMEN: -The "Bennington Women" group voted significantly MORE Democratic in both election cycles compared to the "whole country" group suggesting that they were significantly more politically liberal than the general population -Ok BUT this may be because women typically vote more liberal/progressive OR the age range of Bennington Women may skew younger and this is pinned to more politically liberal values, etc. -This is why Newcomb included "matched controls" for Bennington Women—that is, "matched controls" ONLY included women (see next slide for what he "matched on") MATCHED CONTROLS: What did Newcomb "match controls" on? - Gender - Age - Race - Social class -By using the "matched control" one is now able to get a rough idea of what effect the Bennington College environment had on females (of similar age, social class, etc.) that happened to attend Bennington College. -In short, Bennington Women were significantly MORE politically liberal than similar female ("matched control") counterparts. ____________________________________________ they stayed liberal because... •Stayed friends with other Bennington women •Married liberal men •Pursued liberal careers •Likely to be private acceptance... ---That is, they become liberal - One of the provocative implications of this research is that females who attended Bennington College came to privately accept or, in other words, become political liberal

Conformity example

Researchers conducted field experiments to test whether people would conform to injunctive and descriptive norms about environmental conservation - One great example of research on conformity was conducted by Cialdini. Cialdini was interested in whether people would be more likely to conform to injunctive norms: social norms about what people should do (e.g., you should not litter), or descriptive norms: social norms about what people actually do (e.g., people litter). - He wanted to test whether exposing people to injunctive norms or exposing them to descriptive norms made them more likely to re use their towels in a hotel setting in order to save water and promote conservation.

Social Influence

Ways in which individuals change their behavior to meet the demands of a social environment This week we will be learning about a few different types of social influence, among other things. It might be useful to think about this material in the context of things that are happening in the world around you right now! Social influence, broadly speaking, can be thought of as the different ways in which individuals change their behavior to meet the demands of a social environment. We will talk about a few different types of social influence—make sure you know what distinguishes one from the others.

Political Theorist/Philosopher Hannah Arendt (1965)

argued that the atrocities of the Holocaust occurred not because the participants were psychopaths, BUT because they were ordinary people bowing to extraordinary social pressures -The above quote from Hannah Arendt points to how ordinary people, like you and I, have the capacity to collaborate in the production of evil (e.g., genocides, massacres, killing, etc.) under certain forms of social pressure -This perspective is quite distinct from the narrative of "bad apples" or "evil doers" which suggests that many evil acts occur because of the few "bad apples" or individuals who are inherently evil -Arendt and Milgram and social psychology suggest social pressures can get us to do things we thought we were not capable of doing.

Letting others define the situation

•Candid Camera (facing back of elevator) •Sherif (auto-kinetic effect) •Asch (lines) •Latane & darley (smoke filled room)

Halo Effect

•"What is beautiful is good" •Belief that attractive individuals possess a host of positive qualities beyond their physical appearance •Dion et al. (1972) found that good-looking men and women are judged to be: -Happier, more intelligent, more popular -More desirable personalities, higher incomes, and more professional success •Can this lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy? -Dion and colleagues (1972) came up with a term called, the "halo effect" which is essentially the idea that what is deemed beautiful is good -They theorize and provide evidence that good looking women and men are perceived to be more happy, intelligent, popular, etc. than people who are not good-looking -Recall, that many weeks ago in class and in your textbook we went over the "self fulfilling prophecy" - one can see how this idea plays out if we have a default to conflate physical attractiveness with good traits and characteristics. -In other words, if we EXPECT such individuals to be "good" as a sheer function of physical beauty we may behave toward them in kind and help bring out such positive attributes that are in line with our expectations

Yale Communication Paradigm

•Carl Hovland ---Learning researcher, WWII •How do soldiers learn and retain what they need to know? •"Who says what to whom through what channel with what effect?" - Carl Hovland stated the above quote which highlights some of the key factors that determining whether someone will be persuaded.

What is social influence?

•The many ways people affect one another •Involves changes in behavior or attitudes that result from... ---Comments made by others ---Actions made by others ---Presence of others -The construct/idea that this "candid camera" clip is playing around with is conformity and, more broadly, social influence -In general, social influence is defined as the ways in which people affect one another -That is, changing a person's behavior or attitude as a function of what some other person (or people) says, does, or even merely their presence

Who: Features of the Source

•Trustworthiness •Similarity to self •Credibility -Features of the source such as trustworthiness, similarity, and credibility all work to persuade us (everything else being equal)

Strength of Attitudes

*Centrality* •Centrality within a belief system •Measure a variety of attitudes within a domain and calculate the extent to which a particular attitude is linked to the other attitudes ---Attitude is important to extent that it is central in network of attitudes ---Correlates highly with attitudes on other issues -Conceptually, the strength of attitudes is thought to be reflective of: ---Centrality: Is the attitude a "hub" to other attitudes? In other words, is it centrally located in one's set of attitudes as this signals the importance of that attitude ---For example, in Malcolm's life "equality" has more centrality than say his love for "cold brew coffee" as the former affects his volunteering activities, how he votes, what political issues he pay attention to, etc. whereas the latter quenches his thirst on a warm, summer day and provides the "get-up and go" feel. ___________________________________________ *Accessibility* •Degree to which attitude is ready to become active in the individual's mind, guiding thought and behavior (often measured by response latency) -Another marker of strength of an attitude is the accessibility or how on "top of the mind" the attitude is. -The argument is the more highly accessible the attitude is (e.g., justice) suggests that the particular attitude is strong and arguably important to Malcolm.

Rusbult & Martz (1995)

- What predicts whether abused women return to an abusive relationship? - Feelings of commitment (as measured by): - Investments ---E.g., married, having children together - Quality of alternatives ---E.g., enough money, a place to stay - Less dissatisfaction ---E.g., reported less severe abuse -Rusbult has applied her model to helping us understand why abused women stay in or return to abusive relationships. -One of the "take away" messages in her research with abused women is that they sometimes report less dissatisfaction in these relationships (e.g., reported less severe abuse) as a way of staying committed to the relationship. -Part of the reason is that the quality of alternatives for many of the women was not there—for instance, they did not have enough money or another place to stay -Another reason was that they had made investments in the relationship--getting married, having kids

Fraser Hall Elevator (Circa 2009)

-Back in 2009 when I was taking the Fraser Hall Elevator up I saw this scribble on one of the walls of the elevator... -Max (I assume) was so much in love and feeling that vibe that he had to write it out on a public space to tell the world how he felt. -Max + Renee = Love. I thought isn't that sweet. I wish the best for Max and Renee. -The next day I hop onto the elevator and I noticed that the scribble of their love was NO LONGER there. Apparently, a custodial staff person had wiped the wall clean and in so doing erased this bold, public declaration of their love. -In all likelihood Max and Renee are no longer together. Much like the custodial staff erased their love, things happened that led to the dissolution of their love for one another. -Or maybe, just maybe, they are still out there together. Many years later, scribbling their declaration of love for one another; I just haven't hopped on the correct elevator yet.

Attitude to Behavior Process Model

-Fazio's model falls on the side of an automatized process that does not require much effortful thinking from us -He argues that there is the object (e.g., tattoo) and that this is tethered to (a) your own attitude toward the object (e.g., I like tattoos) and (b) the social norms regarding the object (e.g., in modern times it is pretty cool to have tattoos) but that these perceptions occur without much deliberation and help to define the event/object (e.g., feeling predisposed to getting a tattoo) and that this predicts behavior

Who won the debate?

-In this study by Lepper et al. (unpublished data), participants who were Democrats (Carter supporters), Republicans (Reagan supporters), or undecided voters took at the same debate and were asked who won the debate. -For Carter supporters, they overwhelmingly thought Carter won. -For Reagan supporters, they overwhelmingly thought Reagan won -For undecided voters, there was no clear winner but it seemed to trend to either Regan winning or it was a draw. -The SAME video of the debate and people with different attitudes walked away with very different perceptions of reality.

Four Possible Attitude Reactions

-It is the case that we can clearly feel positive or negative toward something, some person, some issue, etc. -BUT it is also possible, as the figure shows, we can feel ambivalence toward something when we house both positive and negative feelings toward it. For instance, you may have a friend who is smart and with whom you have great conversations with (i.e., positive reaction) BUT mistreats service staff anytime you all head out to restaurants, the movies, coffee shops, etc. (i.e., negative reaction) -We can also feel indifference toward something especially in cases where we have not given much thought or consideration to something, some person, some issue, etc.

types of dissonance

1. Justification of attitude-discrepant behaviors: occurs when someone believes x but does y, where y implies not x (classic definition of dissonance •E.g., someone who is against cruel treatment of all animals but loves eating lobster could likely feel dissonance because their attitude (against cruelty) is discrepant from their behavior (eating lobsters, which are boiled alive) 2. Post-decision Regret: occurs when someone makes a decision x and immediately afterwards worries about x not being the right decision •E.g., someone who makes an impulsive purchase might experience dissonance and having just done x (buying something impulsively) and realizing that x was not a good idea (it's better to not buy impulsively) 3. Justification of Effort: occurs when someone puts a lot of effort/time/$ into doing x and realizes all the effort might not have been worth it •E.g., someone who went through hazing to be in a fraternity might start feeling that it wasn't worth it after getting into it •Justification of attitude-discrepant behavior ---ATTITUDE SAYS ONE THING BUT YOU ACT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T SUPPORT IT •Post-decision regret ---YOU MAKE A DECISION AND YOUR WORRIED ABOUT IT NOT BEING RIGHT •Justification of effort ---YOU PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO SOMETHING AND THEN REALIZE THAT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN WORTH IT Factors that lead to dissonance 1)The behavior was freely chosen 2)The behavior wasn't sufficiently justified 3)The behavior had negative consequences 4)The negative consequences were foreseeable

What do we judge to be attractive?

1. Symmetry is Attractive -Everything else being equal, people are attracted to facial symmetry -Studies have shown that facial symmetry is one of the best observational indicators of good genes and healthy development -In other words, facial symmetry is a rough proxy for "good genes" so evolutionary psychology suggests that we may be attracted to facial symmetry because it signals to us "good genes" and "healthy development" in the other person 2. "Average" is Attractive -"Average" is attractive - what do I mean by this? -We prefer "average" faces because they are closer to our mental prototype of a "face" -In other words, average faces are more face-like; they map onto our mental representations of what a face is supposed to look like -Prototypes are rated more attractive because they are easier (or more efficient) for the brain to process. 3. Clumsiness is Attractive •Aronson, Willerman, & Floyd (1966) •Ps listened to tape-recorded session in which a stimulus person was being interviewed for a spot on college team that was to enter quiz competition •IV 1: -Person demonstrates SUPERIOR or AVERAGE ability •IV 2: -Clumsy Pratfall or NOT •DV: Rate Attractiveness -Clumsiness can also be attractive -In an old study by Aronson and colleagues (1966), participants (Ps) listened to a tape recorded session in which a male target was supposedly being interviewed for a spot on an academic college team. -The target stimulus demonstrates superior or average ability (IV 1) -As the person is leaving the interview the person takes a BIG, clumsy fall or NOT (IV 2) -Ps have to rate the person they heard on attractiveness RESULTS: superior ability: fall is more attractive than not average ability: no fall is more attractive than falling. -On the y-axis you have attraction scores where higher #s indicate that the target is rated as being more attractive -On the x-axis you have superior OR average ability conditions; and in orange bars you have "pratfall" and yellow bars "no pratfall" -Let's start with average ability: The 'no pratfall' target is seen as significantly MORE attractive than the 'pratfall' target. -How about "superior ability"? Here we actually see that the"pratfall" target is significantly MORE attractive than the "no pratfall" condition. -Why do you suppose this happens? -The researchers argue that a typically negative trait like "clumsiness" can make the SMART target seem more "approachable"

Stages of Intimacy

1. The Initial Stage is in the beginning •The "getting to know each other" stage •Individuals share mostly surface level information •Mostly their public selves 2. The Discovery Stage falls in the middle •An individuals' personalities begin to emerge more •Details are still more general but also more relaxed than the initial stage 3. The Bonding Stage falls in the end •Share more intimate information about the private self •Includes negative and controversial topics •When building relationships, closeness doesn't happen all at once—we build our way there •There are 3 basic stages of intimacy that we go through when developing some kind of relationship with someone The Initial Stage falls in the beginning of "getting to know each other", where individuals share mostly superficial information about themselves at the public level. •What do you like to do for fun? •What's your favorite food? The Discovery Stage falls in the middle, where individuals' personalities begin to emerge more, but the details shared still generally reveal the public self. •What does your family do on holidays? •Where do you want to be in your job 5 years from now? The Bonding Stage falls in the end, where individuals share more intimate information about the private self, including negative and controversial topics. •What does death mean to you? •Are you afraid you'll never be good enough?

social influence definitions

Conformity (Asch studies) •An individual alters their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior to bring them in accordance with those of a majority. ---Informational social influence= correct answer is ambiguous ---Normative social influence= correct answer is clear Obedience (Milgram shock studies) •Individual yields to the specific instructions from an authority figure or powerful person Compliance •responding favorably to an explicit request by another person (not authority figure) Early research in social psychology looked at different types of social influence. Specifically, researchers looked at conformity: what happens when an individual alters their beliefs, attitudes, or behavior to bring them in accordance with those of a majority, Obedience: what happens when an individual yields to specific instructions from an authority figure or powerful person (power dynamic is key here), and Compliance: when an individual responds favorably to an explicit request by another person that is not an authority figure.

How does the ELM relate to what we have learned before?

In previous discussions, we've talked about attitudes. •Elaboration likelihood model is a general theory of attitude change, and how we can best change the attitudes of an audience based on the situation. We also discussed two modes of thinking: •Central route is akin to "controlled" thinking (i.e., effortful, deliberative) •Peripheral route is akin to "automatic" thinking (i.e., effortless, unintentional)

Empirical example: (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986)

In this study, strength of argument, personal relevance and expertise of person delivering information (a peripheral cue) were manipulated. *Study overview*: •Participants read either 8 weak arguments or 8 strong arguments in support of comprehensive exams for all graduating seniors. •Participants were either told that the policy would be implemented in the following year (they would have to take the exam) or in 10 years (personal relevance manipulation) •Participants were told that the arguments were written by either local high school class or a "Carnegie Commission on Higher Education" (peripheral cue manipulation) •After reading the arguments, the participants reported their attitudes towards policy implementation. *Discussion of Results*: •In Fig A, we can see that strong arguments were able to create positive attitudes, as compared to weak arguments. •Personally relevant condition saw arguments being rated much stronger by participants. ---Participants found strong, personally relevant, arguments as much more favorable than strong-personally irrelevant. ---Participants found weak, personally relevant arguments as much more unfavorable than weak-personally irrelevant. •Arguments made from an expert source led to participants showing positive attitude towards policy. ---But students in personally relevant condition (who had to take the test the following year) were less influenced than those in personally irrelevant condition (who didn't have to take the test) *Takeaways*: Basically, participants in the personal relevance condition were persuaded by strong arguments (the central route) but the levels of expertise had to effect on their policy judgement - weak arguments were not effective. Personal irrelevance (where they weren't effected by policy) was greatly effected with expertise of the person who crafted the arguments (peripheral route).

Why do people conform?

Informational Pressure (Internalization) •The desire to be right •Sherif - ambiguous stimuli, calm subjects Normative Pressure (Compliance) •desire to be accepted •Asch - clear stimuli, tense subjects •Fringe conformists (Dittes & Kelley) ---"Wannabes" conform more •Harmonizing? -Why do people conform? -A distinction can be made between conforming because of (a) informational pressure or (b) normative pressure. -Informational pressure --- The motivation here is a desire to be right/correct ---A research example of this that we covered is the Sherif study on the autokinetic effect. The stimuli was ambiguous and the Ps were calm and even much later the Ps generally gave the same response which suggests they "internalized" the norm that was formed -Normative pressure ---The motivation here is a desire to be accepted ---A research example of this that we just covered is the Asch line study where there was a clear stimuli and some of the Ps were tense (as shown in the video clip) ---Ps who went with the group and gave the incorrect response were trying to "fit in" and be "accepted" by the group ---BUT why do we care so much about being accepted?

Injunctive vs. Descriptive Norms

Injunctive: norms about what we should do Descriptive: norms about what people really do Participants were either in the injunctive or descriptive norm condition. - Injunctive (what you should do): "The environment deserves our respect. You can show your respect for nature and help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay" - Descriptive (what people actually do): "Almost 75% of guests who are asked to participate in our new resource savings program do help by using their towels more than once. You can join your fellow guests in this program to help save the environment by reusing your towels during your stay" After this, Cialdini measured the participants' level of participation in the "reuse your towel program." Just to recap, he was interested in whether the injunctive or descriptive norm would promote people to reuse their towels more. ___________________________________________ RESULTS: standard enviro message: 35% particiption descriptive norm message: 44% participation - Participants who read the sign with the descriptive norm (about what other people are actually doing) were much more likely to participate by reusing their towels, than were participants who read the injunctive norm (which described what people should do). - This could also be explained by saying that conformity was more common when people read about what people actually do, versus what one should do. - This does not mean that descriptive norms are always more effective than injunctive norms—but they certainly were in this scenario! Maybe we can get people to be more pro-environmental in general just by saying that the normative behavior is the be environmentally responsible

Message Characteristics

Quality •Message is straightforward, clear and logical, conclusions are explicit, highlights desirable consequences of taking action, appeals to core values, refutes the opposition. Vividness •Vivid information - colorful and flashy - is effective •One identifiable victim beats thousands of abstract victims Use of emotions •Fear appeals: Effective when provides info on how to act on that fear. Can backfire. Culture •Emphasizing benefits to the individual vs. the collective - Vivid communications, including images of identifiable victims, are usually more effective than more pallid ones, and fear-evoking communications that provide fear-reducing courses of action produce more attitude change than either non-fear-evoking communications or fear-evoking communications that do not provide fear-reducing courses of action. - Message content often varies in independent and interdependent societies, with ads in independent cultures emphasizing the individual and ads in interdependent societies emphasizing the collective.

Resisting Persuasion Attempts: Reactance Theory

Reactance Theory (Brehm, 1956) •Overly forceful or apparent attempts at persuasion can often backfire •People desire to maintain feelings of personal freedom •When freedom of choice is threatened may refuse to comply or do the opposite -It should be mentioned that we sometimes bristle at acts of persuasion -Jack Brehm who was a social psychology professor at KU and did foundational work on cognitive dissonance theory developed "reactance theory" to describe how we sometimes negatively react to experiences of persuasion -He argues that when persuasion tactics are TOO overbearing or a "sledge hammer" approach is used people's perceived freedom of choice may be threatened and they may react in such a way as to re-establish and signal their personal freedom by REFUSING to comply or doing the opposite _________________________________________ Reactance theory (Brehm, '56) •Examples may include: ---Attempts to persuade people to stop smoking/drinking fail when worded too strongly ---Strong anti-drinking message leads to more drinking

Why are Relationships Important?

Relationships represent some kind of bond between people - Evolution suggests they're functional for survival Communal: individuals feel responsibility for each other - Interdependent, give and receive based on principle of need, long-term Exchange: individuals don't feel responsible for each other - Independent, give and receive based on fairness, short-term •THIS IS SOME REVIEW FROM THIS WEEK'S LECTURES TO GET THEM IN THE RIGHT MINDSET •We all know what a relationship is—it's some kind of bond between people •As social creatures, humans have a built-in need to belong ---Evolution would suggest this is because relationships facilitate reproduction and in humans it helps us raise effective offspring since kids are dependent for so long What kinds of relationships are there? •Communal ------We feel responsible for the other person ------We give and receive based on their needs (doesn't have to be fair) ------These tend to be long-term (Your best friend and/or partner) •Exchange ------We don't really feel responsible for the other person ------We give and receive solely so things stay fair ------These tend to be short-term (Groupmates within a project)

Why do we like disclosure?

Self-Expansion Theory (Aron & Aron, 1997) - Intimacy provides a sense of expanding ourselves to "merge" with a partner ---We "take on" parts of our partner's identity as our own - Provides opportunities for self-growth ---Broadening your perspective, acquiring new skills/abilities/tastes, learning new things, expanding your experiences, becoming a better person ---E.g. Your partner loves to cook, but you don't. Over time you may decide you like cooking and/or identify as a cook, through your experiences/exposure/participation with your partner in the kitchen •According to Self-Expansion Theory, it is important for people's sense of self to expand and grow •Other theories also support this view (see Self-Determination Theory) •By "merging" with a partner, we expand our horizons—we do more, we have a stronger support system, and they motivate us to be our best •Because of this, we tend to pick relationship partners with similar goals—help us reach them •Self-expansion typically applies to the self but is easily and often applied to romantic relationships because they are very close social bonds, which tend to affect the self and one's self-concept. _______________________________________________ "Inclusion of other in the self": greater merging of one's sense of self with their partner It's related to: - Relationship satisfaction - Commitment - Relationship investment and importance So how do we measure intimacy and closeness? •This above graph is the inclusion of the other in the self scale •It's only 1 question and is considered VERY reliable and valid •All participants have to do is select the pair of circles that best represents how close they feel with a specific other ---The more overlap = the closer you both are •This simple picture measure is typically related to relationship satisfaction, commitment, and relationship investment ---Mostly because of how critical intimacy is to all 3 of those Within romantic relationships, it is problematic to be on either extremes of the scale (i.e., no overlap & almost total overlap).

Disclosure and Intimacy

Social Penetration Theory: - Self-disclosure (disclosing information about the self) leads to greater feelings of intimacy/emotional closeness and liking - Disclosure should be sustained and reciprocal As the relationship progresses, disclosure topics proceed from trivial and superficial to personal and emotional - Cyclical nature of disclosure and intimacy/closeness - Intimacy tends to increase as we build up trust •If you categorized the questions from low to high levels of intimacy, then you were in line with Social Penetration Theory •According to Social Penetration Theory, relationship development occurs primarily through self-disclosure ---The topics disclosed move from relatively shallow, non-intimate ones (e.g., favorite color, dogs or cats, favorite types of music) to deeper, more intimate ones (e.g., hopes, dreams, fears, desires) as relationships develop. •Simply put, we build our relationships by slowly and consistently telling the other person information about ourselves. ---This also emphasizes the importance of communication in relationships. ------Without disclosing information and building that information base, we can't progress to a stronger relationship

Proximity

We become friends with, date, marry, people who are nearby, spatially (or functionally) closer to us -The FIRST factor is "proximity" (or what is sometimes called "propinquity") -There is evidence suggesting that we become friends, date, etc. people who are spatially near to us. -This is not to take away anything from Hallmark Greeting Cards about love, poets who write love poems, musicians who write love ballads, etc. BUT what this factor offers up is that what if part of the reason we become attracted to someone is due to something as mundane/dull as living/working/etc. closer to someone that provides the potential for "sparks" to fly -The photo is taken from one of the great 21st century office romances of television history - Pam and Jim who go from colleagues to friends to romantic partners to married in U.S. version "The Office".

Sherif (1935): Norm Formation

Will people's physical perceptions be affected by social influence? - Muzafer Sherif was interested in whether social influence could affect people's perceptions of the physical/visual world. ___________________________________________ Norm formation study •Auto-Kinetic Effect ---Stationary pinpoint of light in darkened room appears to move •Ps estimate the distance the dot moves •First, while alone •Then, when in a group •Over the course of trials/sessions do Ps converge on movement? -Sherif employed what is known as the "auto-kinetic effect" which is the experience of a stationary pinpoint of light in a darkened room appears to move as a function of our own eye movements and the lack of a reference point because of the darkened room makes it hard to determine how far the point of light has moved -Participants (Ps) make an estimation of how far the point of light moves (on their own) AND THEN they make an estimate when in a group (of 2 more Ps) -The group makes these judgments over several trials. Sherif was interested in whether the group comes to a consensus on how far the point of light has moved. -In other words, whether a norm is formed as a function of being in a group and being socially influenced by the other members ____________________________________________ RESULTS: Conformity OVER Time IN 3-person Group Pregroup 8, 2, and 1 inch: all end up in the middle at 2.5 -The above is an example of the data that Sherif found... -In brief, the ratings of movement varied quite a bit when people were making these judgments on their own. -However, when placed in a group where people were asked to voice estimates of how far the point of light moved there was convergence (or conformity) over time such that after a few trials there was a "shared reality" of how far the point moved. ______________________________________________ TAKE-AWAYS: •100% conformity ---All Ps change their estimates when in a group •Is this private acceptance or not? ---Probably acceptance ------Even when alone, and when tested 1 year later Ps make the same estimates •Transfer of effect from one group to the next -Sherif demonstrated that ALL Ps changed their estimates when placed in a group. -Sherif argues that this "new norm" (of how far the point of light moved) created in the group was privately accepted. Why? -Because even when alone (after being in the group) or even tested 1 year later Ps make the same estimates that were formed in the group

Some Notes About Marriage

•50-60% of 1st marriages end in divorce •Steeper the initial decline, more likely to break up later (Bradbury, 1995 study of 45,000 couples) •Factors to keep satisfaction up: -Couples engage in new and arousing activities (Aron et al., 2000) -Couples avoid contempt, blame, and defensiveness (Levenson & Gottman, 1999) -There is an abundance of data on married couples. Here are some highlights... -A couple of things worth noting is that a great deal of marriages end in divorce -The "steeper" the initial decline re: marital satisfaction the more likely the marriage will end in divorce

•Can attachment styles change?

•According to Kirkpatrick & Hazan (1994) •Over 4 years, 30% of one sample changed attachment styles •Best match: Secure-secure •Worst match: Avoidant-A/A -There is an assumption regarding this literature that once you develop a certain attachment style early on this is the attachment style you are locked into for the remainder of your life. Is this the case? -Research indicates that this is NOT necessarily the case. Over the span of 4 years, 30% of participants in a study by Kirkpatrick & Hazan (1994) changed attachment styles. In other words, there is room for change.

Role of ABCs in Attitudes

•Affective component ---Consists of emotional reactions toward, or feelings about the attitude object •Behavioral component ---Consists of actions toward the attitude object •Cognitive component ---Consists of thoughts and beliefs about the attitude object -To be clear, attitudes can be thought of in terms of ABCs: ---"A": Affective—so far the previous two slides highlight this component of attitudes (e.g., my favorable feelings toward KU) ---"B": Behavior—how do I actually behave toward the referent/object (e.g., I am willing to donate some of my hard earned money to KU endowment) ---"C": Cognitive—what are my beliefs/cognitions regarding the referent (e.g., I believe KU serves the Lawrence and broader Kansas communities in positive ways)

Asch (1951): Line length estimation study

•Asch (1951) •Ps exposed to a line and were then asked to determine which of the options closest to length of original line - Solomon Asch showed participants (Ps) a line and they were then asked to select the option that is closest to the length of original line (see next slide for a visual representation) ______________________________________________ Line study •Ps exposed to a line and were then asked to determine which of the options closest to length of original line •Real Ps are placed in groups with 6 confederates •On round 3, five confederates give the obviously wrong answer •Do Ps conform to incorrect selected line? -As demonstrated in the video clip, there is ONE actual P and the rest of the Ps are actual confederates (who are in on the study) -On round 3, the confederates ALL give the incorrect response and then it gets to the actual participant... -The actual P is faced with the choice of having to (a) choose the correct response BUT go against the group or (b) succumb to the pressure and go with the group despite that they know this is an incorrect choice. What do they do? ________________________________________ RESULTS: - Asch found that about 37% of the time the actual P goes with the unanimous majority despite the fact that they obviously choose the wrong choice Rates of conformity: •Over all trials, 37% •76% of Ps conform at least once - Most Ps were susceptible to conforming at least once during the various trials - Were these findings indicative of compliance or private acceptance? •Probably public compliance •When participants are alone they give the correct answers •When participants answer in private they give the "correct" answers -Asch argues that they were probably more about public compliance. How did he come to this conclusion? -When Ps are alone they give the correct response -When Ps answer in private (e.g., via a writing on a piece of paper) they give the correct response

Attitudes

•Attitude: evaluation of an object along a positive - negative dimension •Three components: - Affect - how much someone likes or dislikes an object - Behavior - affective opinion leads to approach or avoidance behaviors - Cognition - knowledge and beliefs about an object ---Typically reinforce a person's affect

Peripheral cues include:

•Attractive spokesperson/celebrity •Expert •Short message (sound bites) •Association with positive feelings -Note that persuasion here occurs with "superficial" cues and ones that do not try to convince the person based on reason, facts, or content

Theories of Love

•Balance theory •Communal and exchange relationships •Mis-attribution of arousal •Investment model of relationships •Attachment styles

Variations on Milgram study and rates of full obedience

•Baseline study: 65% •Victim in same room as P: 40% •P must touch victim: 30% -The "baseline study" is typically what is presented when people discuss the Milgram study on obedience to authority. -However, Milgram ran many variations on the study that tweaked certain aspects of the "baseline study" to see how this would affect rates of obedience -One of the way these different "tweaks" can be framed is distancing people from the teacher (the actual P) by putting the victim in a different room, not having to touch them, etc. allowed people to victimize more arguably as a function of dehumanizing them _______________________________________ "Tuning out the experimenter" •Milgram strengthened/weakened forces that compelled ps to complete the study •Experimenter absent version: experimenter left the room and issued all subsequent orders over phone •Ordinary person version: seemingly another participant delivered orders to increase shock level •Rebel experimenter version: 1 of 2 experimenters morally objects to study continuing •"take away": as experimenter became less salient & less present, the teachers' obedience rates diminished _____________________________________________ •Baseline study: 65% •Office in Bridgeport, CT: 47% •Ordinary person in charge: 18% •Experimenter out of room: 19% •Victim in same room as P: 40% •P must touch victim: 30% •Rebel confederate: 10% -The "baseline study" is typically what is presented when people discuss the Milgram study on obedience to authority. -However, Milgram ran many variations on the study that tweaked certain aspects of the "baseline study" to see how this would affect rates of obedience -One of the way these different "tweaks" can be framed is that some pointed to how "authority" was not only found in the experimenter in a lab coat, but also to the college campus, to the scientific enterprise, etc. - For example, if the study was done in an office in downtown Bridgeport, CT instead of the college campus in an academic building this dropped rates of obedience, etc

Theory of Passionate Love

•Being in love = physiological arousal that is labeled as "love", "lust", or "passion" •Arousal can be: -Directly tied to the person (sexual arousal, nervousness); or -Derived from another source (exercise, roller-coaster ride, watching a horror film) ---this is called (mis-) attribution of arousal -Being in love is sometimes pinned to the physiological arousal (e.g., heart racing) we feel for specific people in our lives; this is labeled as love, lust, or passion -Arousal can be directly tied to the person OR it can be derived from another source an be mis-attributed to that person

Attachment Styles

•Bowlby (1982); Hazan & Shaver (1997) •Typology of attachment styles in romantic relationships based on bond you formed as an infant with parents (e.g., mother) or caregivers •As a result of this early relationship, one develops a schema for how those who care for us will act - The premise regarding attachment styles in romantic relationships is that the bonds you form early on (with parents) dictate the schemas or templates you will use later on in life _______________________________________________ •Develop implicit theories about what relationships are, what we expect from our partner, and how the relationship should operate •These (implicit) theories influence our behavior in relationships -Secure: characterized by trust in partner and satisfying relationship -Avoidant: characterized by discomfort and lack of trust in partner, and a need for more space -Anxious-Ambivalent: characterized by an overwhelming "needing" of the partner; often freaks partner out -The above table gives you an idea of the percentage of people who fall into secure, avoidant, and anxious categories. -Most people fall into a secure attachment style (about 56%) -Followed by avoidant attachment style (about 23-25%) -And anxious attachment style (about 19-21%)

Shaky bridge study

•Dutton & Aron (1974) •Is there support for this mis-attribution of arousal? •Male subjects approached by attractive female researcher •IV: -Crossing a shaky bridge -Crossing a stable bridge -Dutton & Aron (1974) conducted a study that we will call the "shaky bridge" study to determine whether there is empirical evidence for this mis-attribution of arousal -The study was a field study in which an attractive female research assistant approached the men after they had just crossed a bridge to complete a brief survey. The bridge was either (1) shaky or (2) stable 1. Capilano Canyon Suspension Bridge •5-foot wide, 450-foot-long suspension bridge •Constructed of wooden boards attached to wire cables •Tendency to tilt, sway, wobble •Very low handrails of wire cable •230-foot drop to rocks and shallow river 2. control bridge •Solid wood bridge located further upriver •Constructed of heavy cedar •Firmer and wider than the experimental bridge •10 feet above a small, shallow rivulet •High handrails and does NOT sway ________________________________________________ - Once the participants answered the brief survey they were thanked and told by the female research assistant that IF they wanted to know more about the results of the study they could call her at a phone # provided. - The main outcome of this study was the percent of male participants who gave a "follow up" call to the researcher regarding the findings of the study. The researchers argue that the follow-up call could be indicative of their attraction to the female research assistant. RESULTS (% of Male Ps who Phoned the Researcher) shaky: 50% Stable: 12% -The findings indicated a significant difference such that male Ps in the "shaky" condition were MORE likely to call than the "stable" condition. -This is suggestive evidence for a mis-attribution of arousal. ______________________________________________ "Take Away" •Researchers argued that increased interest in the interviewer was caused by misattribution of arousal •Men misattribute their increased heart rate and sweaty palms to the attractive woman rather than the fact they just crossed a wood-and-cable bridge that is high above a rushing river •A small amount of stress can spur amorous feelings Question: What is a possible criticism of their study that helps explain the effects they found? - One possibility is that more adventurous and risk-taking males would have gone over the "shaky" bridge than the stable bridge and this individual difference could help account for who phoned and "followed up" with the attractive female research assistant.

Persuasion

•Efforts to change others' attitudes through the use of various kinds of messages - If we have attitudes, there are arguably efforts in place to change our attitudes through different types of messaging EXAMPLE: -Advertisement is ONE MAJOR arena where we see the efforts to influence our attitudes about products, behaviors, etc. -A juggernaut of a company is Nike and their "Just do it." campaign. -A quick origin story on their "just do it" campaign... -There was a man who had grown up in Portland, Oregon and his name was Gary Gilmore. (The city that is home to Nike). -He grew up in Portland and committed criminal acts in the U.S., and was in Utah where he robbed and murdered two men, and was sent to jail and put before a firing squad -They asked him if he had any final thoughts and he said "Let's do it." (Let's do this.) -Let's do it was changed to "Just Do It."

EXCEPTIONALIST-NORMALIST

•Exceptionalist thesis: (i.e., "bad apples") - Exceptionally sadistic, desperate, or ethnocentric people •Normalist thesis: - Most people are capable of destructive obedience, and given the right circumstances, almost anyone would commit such acts

Attitude

•Favorable or unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something •Attitudes always have a referent •Objects to which attitudes refer include people, things, events, and issues •(Can) guide behavior -Unpacking the previous quote from the social psychologists--Alice Eagly and Shelly Chaiken there are several KEY components that the excerpt highlights (1) An attitudes is a FAVORABLE or UNFAVORABLE evaluation/feeling toward something (2) The attitude has a referent (e.g., person, event, issue)

Friendship formation study

•Festinger, Schachter, & Back (1950) •MIT friendship formation study •Does living near someone make them a close friend? - A classic study on the issue of proximity is a field study by Festinger, Schachter, & Back (1950) - The study was conducted at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) University -The study examined friendships and community life in a housing project for 260 married veterans at MIT -One of the central questions they were examining was whether proximity is an important factor in the formation of friendships? _____________________________________________ -What you see on this slide is a schematic of the housing project -The researchers took note of where the different participants' apartment was located to determine whether being a next door neighbor (vs. 2 or more downs) had an impact on perceived closeness to said neighbor. -What did they find? _____________________________________________ RESULTS: 1 door away: 41% 2 doors away: 22% 3 doors away: 16% 4 doors away: 10% - The results clearly show that being spatially closer (or being in closer proximity) is associated with HIGHER perceptions of close companionship - The pattern is such that the further one's neighbors are located there is lower perceptions of close companionship with that person/couple -They go onto explain this effect as a function of what proximity "buys" you - you are MORE likely to run into that person repeatedly, and maybe get to know them who is right next door vs. several doors down or on the floor below you -To repeat, spatial proximity gives you the possibility of interacting with that person/neighbor more and the possibility of having more conversations with them, becoming familiar with them, etc.

Theory of Planned Behavior

•Fishbein & Azjen (1975); Azjen & Fishbein (1980) -Azjen and colleagues developed what they call a "theory of planned behavior" -Their model suggests a deliberate and effortful process -In order to bettter predict behavior they propose a behavioral intention that has three antecedents: ---What is one's personal attitude toward the object (e.g., tattoo)? ---What is the norm regarding the object (e.g., are tattoos seen as cool or okay in society)? ---Does a person have behavioral control regarding the object (e.g., do they know a great tattoo shop to go to)? -Azjen et al. argue that IF a person has a positive attitude toward the object, the norms are positive with regards to the object, and that the person has perceived behavioral control that this sets up the intention to, in this case, get the tattoo and it should lead to a likelihood of getting that tattoo.

Attachment Style Dimensions

•Fraley et al. (2000) •Anxiety -Amount of fear a person feels about rejection and abandonment within close relationships •Avoidance -Is a person comfortable with intimacy and dependence in primary adult relationships or finds them aversive -Chris Fraley distinguishes between two factors in the attachment style literature: -Anxiety -Amount of fear a person has regarding rejection or abandonment in a relationship -People can be low to high on this dimension -Avoidance -The degree to which a person is comfortable with intimacy and dependency in adult relationships -People can be low to high on this dimension

Elaboration-Likelihood Model of Persuasion (ELM)

•Petty & Cacioppo (1986) •2 routes to attitude change: ---*Central route*: attitude change results from consideration of the merits of a persuasive message ---*Peripheral route*: attitude change results from attention to "peripheral persuasion cues" -The ELM distinguished between central and peripheral routes of persuasion -Central is akin to more effortful and conscious-driven proceeses -Peripheral is akin to more effortless and unconscious-driven processes

Fear Appeals

•Frighten people with the consequences of NOT changing -A particular brand of advertising are "fear appeals" that typically act as public service announcements (PSAs) -These PSAs try to frighten people into changing their behavior EXAMPLES 1.Anti-Smoking: -Reappropriating the "Marlboro Man" ad for an anti-smoking campaign ad -Frightening people with the possible consequences of continued smoking—like losing one's lung! 2. Child Safety 3. Anti-Drugs -These anti-drug, and in particular, anti-method use ads were distinct when they first came out as they used actual footage (almost like documentary style) of people who were suffering the negative effects of meth use -Ads like this and the others presented here and others you have seen try to scare people into more healthy behavior -BUT do these or other ads go too far and in doing so fail at what they attempt to do—that is, change people's behavior to be more healthy?

What: Features of the Message

•Good Feelings •One-sided vs. two-sided message •Fear appeals -Good feelings or positive emotions attached to the message work to persuade -One-sided vs. two-sided messages: 2 views are generally better especially if the alternative is refuted, and listeners are well-educated or the audience's attitude is different from the communicator's -Messages that do NOT appear to try to change attitudes are often more persuasive -Is audience attending closely? If no, audience may be more persuaded by rapid speaker who appears confident

Balance Theory

•Heider (1958); Newcomb (1961) •We like to organize thoughts about people in a way that is harmonious, consistent, or "balanced" •Imbalance is unpleasant -As you may recall, balance theory proposes that we like to have balance or consistency between people and objects in our lives -Imbalance or inconsistency, this theory argues, is unpleasant and we are motivated to minimize it ________________________________________________ -Let's take as an example the story of Romeo and Juliet—the star-crossed lovers -Romeo and Juliet love one another, Juliet loves her family, BUT Romeo feels negative toward Juliet's family -There is an imbalance in this triad. _________________________________________________ Why is balance important? •1. Balanced relationships are predictable and controllable •2. Balance allows us to validate our opinions and attitudes (by sharing a reality with the other). TO RESTORE BALANCE: -1. Change attitude toward person -2. Change attitude toward object or issue -3. Reduce importance of the topic of disagreement

What about during the pandemic?

•In June, 65% of Americans said they regularly wear masks •However, in August, it increased to 85%. •What happened? How can we apply social influence to understand this shift? •Note: There is a sharp increase for Republican. Why? -This is a time for students to reflect on what they've learned and apply it to mask wearing. -Possible explanations: Normative social influence, social norm shift from leadership, Injunctive vs descriptive norms. Also, students may suggest that there was psychological reactance in June due to the restriction of freedom (mandating mask wearing). -What explains the increase in mask wearing among Republicans? ---Rapid growing case count in republican states ---Led to more Republican leaders to order mask wearing in their state. ---In July, Trump wore a mask in public for the first time and urged Americans to do the same (to some extent)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957)

•Inconsistency between a person's thoughts, sentiments, and actions causes great discomfort --- In short - when our behavior conflicts with our attitudes --- This aversive emotional state is called dissonance •This dissonance leads people to expend psychological energy to restore consistency --- Justification and rationalization of our actions --- If we cannot, we will change our cognition or action to restore consistency

Interdependence

•Interdependence (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) -A state of mutual influence - i.e., when my behaviors affect your outcomes and your behaviors also affect my outcomes •Characterized by an interpersonal association in which two people influence each other's lives •Often focus their thoughts on one another, and regularly engage in joint activities Interdependence according to Thibaut & Kelley (1959) is defined by a state of mutual influence—where what you do affects me and what I do affects you..

What is a CLOSE relationship?

•Kelley et al. (1983) -A close relationship is one of strong, frequent, and diverse interdependence that lasts over a considerable period of time -Harold Kelley, a UCLA social psychologist, argued that a close relationship was marked by strong, frequent, and diverse INTERDEPENDENCE that occurs over a long stretch of time

"Pick-Up Line" study

•Kleike et al. (1986) •What approaches/lines work to increase attraction? -By whom? -To whom? •Study 1: Men approach women •Type of "pick up" line: -Direct -Indirect/Innocuous -Cute-flippant •DV: % positive response -There is this interesting study by Kleike et al. (1986) that examines which "pick-up lines" have the most success in increasing attraction -Study 1 examined these different pick-up lines when men approached women -What were the types of pick-up lines? ---Direct line ---Indirect line ---Cute-flippant line -The dependent measure as the percentage of women who had a positive response to these type of lines. _____________________________________________ direct: •I'm sort of shy, but I'd like to get to know you. •You look like a warm person. •Hi. I like you. •You seem different. I like that. Indirect/Innocuous •I've seen you before. Do you live around here? •Where are you from? •Have you seen any good movies lately? Cute-flippant •Isn't it cold? Let's make some body heat. •Your place or mine? •I've got an offer you can't refuse. _________________________________________________ RESULTS (men approach women) Direct: 68% indirect: 62% cute flippant: 19% -Here are the results... -Direct and Indirect lines were perceived moderately well (no significant difference between these two). -However, the 'cute-flippant' lines did NOT work well at all--they were significantly lower than the other two types in terms of positive response. RESULTS (women approach men) Direct: 81% indirect: 100% cute flippant: 90% -Pretty much everything worked. These are textbook representations of "ceiling effects" The direct is a little lower than indirect BUT keep in mind that direct is at 80% positive response

Road Trip Study

•LaPiere (1934) •In the early 1930s Richard LaPiere went on a U.S. road trip with a young Chinese couple ---Visited 66 hotels ---Visited 184 restaurants •Expected to encounter many difficulties... •BUT, he did NOT (only refused service once) -Richard LaPiere was a (White) sociology professor at Stanford U. -In the early 1930s in the U.S. there was strong anti-Chinese sentiment; in other words, prejudice was high toward this group and its members -LaPiere went on a "road trip" of the U.S. with a Chinese couple over the course of 2 years -Because of the prejudicial attitudes toward Chinese, LaPiere expected to encounter MANY problems...he/they did NOT! -This was very surprising given the strong anti-Chinese attitudes in the U.S. at the time ____________________________________________ •After the trip, LaPiere wrote to all the establishments and asked them for their attitude about serving a Chinese visitor: ---Of the 128 (out of 251) who responded, 92% said that they would NOT serve Chinese •Suggests a GAP between people's attitudes and their behavior -The finding so baffled LaPiere that about 6 months later he sent the establishments (they visited) a questionnaire asking them whether "members of the Chinese race" were welcomed as guests -The responses he got back suggest that prevailing attitudes did NOT predict behavior -This "gap" between attitudes and behavior that this study highlighted has become a central and re-occurring concern within social psychology ____________________________________________ •Hold on a moment... ---Chinese couple spoke flawless English ---Lapiere was a Stanford Professor who is White •Nevertheless, subsequent research has shown that in some cases, attitudes do not predict behavior ---"Principle Implementation Gap" ------Endorsement of principle of racial equality ------Weak support for policy to redress racial inequity -The classic "road trip study" is not without its set of critiques -In particular, (1) the Chinese couple who were doing the cross country trip with LaPiere spoke "flawless English"; and (2) Lapiere was White/Caucasian. These and other factors could have contributed to the lack of expression of prejudice in "real world" situations as documented by this study. -That being said, there have been other studies that have documented the lack of predictive power of attitudes on behavior suggesting that the LaPiere study was not a "one off" -One such line of research has focused on what is referred to as the "principle implementation gap" - the "gap" between White Americans' positive attitudes toward equality as an ideal YET they reject interventions designed to achieve that ideal. ____________________________________________ •"The Road Trip": A classic study on attitudes •PART 1 ---What is an attitude? ---Do attitudes predict behavior? •PART 2 ---Persuasion: What is it? ---Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) -This presentation covers attitudes and persuasion -The first half focuses on the topic of attitudes ---We start by introducing a classic study on attitudes and the "gap" that sometimes exist between attitudes and behavior ---We next provide a working definition of attitudes ---We then spend time understanding how (social) psychologists go about measuring attitudes ---We end this section by considering whether attitudes predict behavior -The second half focuses on persuasion ---We go over a brief, working definition of persuasion and spend a little time on how "fear appeals" work with regards to persuasion ---A major model in the field of persuasion is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) ------We detail this model and then provide an early "classic" study which provides evidence for this model

"anti-smoking" study

•Leventhal, Watts, & Pagano (1967) •Change smoking habits in one of three ways: ---Graphic film of the effects of lung cancer; or ---Pamphlet with instructions about how to quit smoking; or ---Graphic film + pamphlet •DV: Cigarettes smoked each day (1 month after) RESULTS: Pamphlet: 14 Graphic film: 7 film + pamphlet: 5

Milgram (1965, 1974): Obedience studies

•Milgram (1965, 1974) •Will people obey an authority and deliver painful electric shocks to another person -The actual P is the teacher (T) and the learner (L) is the confederate. The experimenter (E) is also located in the same room as the T. -The original study had a really techy looking piece of equipment which delivered the "shocks" ___________________________________________ What happens if a participant expressed reservations or tried to terminate the experiment? Experimenter responses •"please continue" •"the experiment requires that you continue" •"it is absolutely essential that you continue" •"you have no other choice; you must go on" __________________________________________ Obedience to Authority •65% go to 450 volts •Do participants find it easy to submit to authority in this situation? •What in the situational context makes SO MANY participants go to 450 volts? -Psychological experts were asked how far did they think ordinary citizens would go and many said a very few number of individuals. They were wrong! -About 2/3 of people went all the way. -Recall the video you just saw, did the P find it easy to go all the way? -Were their signs that they were struggling within this as the events were unfolding? -If so, why did the P continue on despite their struggles? _____________________________________________ Opposing forces •Force 1: complete the experiment (& continue shocks) ---Fair play: they already received payment & fulfill their part of the bargain ---Agreed to participate (for advancement of science & understanding of human nature) ---Normative social influence •Force 2: terminate the experiment ---Moral imperative to stop the suffering of the learner ---What would happen if something went wrong? ---Prospect of walking out with the learner after everything was over _____________________________________________ "Tuning in the learner" •Milgram directed initial efforts at increasing forces the compelled ps to stop hurting the learner •Heighten the awareness of learner's suffering by making the learner more prominent... ---Proximity version: learner same room as teacher ---Touch-proximity version: force learner's hand onto shock plate •"take away": as learner became more and more present and "real," the teachers' obedience rates diminished

College lecture study

•Moreland & Beach (1992) •Tested the mere exposure effect in a large classroom •Planting female confederates in a large college classroom -Did not interact with professor or other students -Sat quietly in front row where people could see them •IV: How many classes attended -15 meetings down to control condition of NONE •DV: Rate slides of women on attractiveness & liking -A classic study on the mere exposure effect was conducted by Moreland and Beach (1992) in a large, college classroom -Unbeknownst to the students in the class the researchers "planted" several female students (that is, confederates) in class -The female confederates did not interact with profs or students; they simply sat in the front of class and took notes as if they were students -Sitting in the front allowed other students to see them throughout the semester -The independent variable they manipulated was the # of classes they attended—15 class sessions to a control condition of '0' -At the end of class, all students were asked to rate slides of women on attractiveness and liking. Some of these photos were of the female confederates in class ___________________________________________ RESULTS: Attraction ratings 0 times: 3.6 5 times: 3.8 10 times: 4.3 15 times: 4.4 -There was a modest BUT SIGNIFICANT difference such that the photos of females who were in class more were rated as significantly more attractive -The data suggests that more exposure led to more perceived attraction of the female confederate

Measuring Attitudes

•Most commonly assessed through self-report measures such as survey questions •*Likert scale* (developed by Rensis Likert) ---Lists a set of possible answers with anchors on each extreme ---For example, 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree •An example of a Likert scale measure with some items (see next slide) -How do social psychologists go about measuring attitudes? -One of the most common ways is to ask people numerous questions about a certain idea/construct (e.g., self-esteem, patriotism, well-being) -Each question/statement asks the person to disagree or agree with the statement on a Likert-type scale. For example, where 1 is 'strongly disagree' and 7 is 'strongly agree' ________________________________________ •What attitude do you think the items in the survey were measuring? •What are the limitations of this approach to measuring attitudes? - Is this scale susceptible to social desirability effects? That is, people may respond in such a way as to not appear prejudiced?

Why do we conform?

•Normative Social Influence ---The influence of other people that comes from the desire to avoid their disapproval and other social sanctions (ridicule, barbs, ostracism) •Informational Social Influence ---The influence of other people that results from taking their comments or actions as a source of information about what is correct, proper, or effective - There are two main types of social influence that lead us to conform to the behavior of others. - Normative social influence, or what happens when we have a desire to avoid the disapproval of others, and informational social influence, or what happens when we take the comments of information from other people as a source about what is correct or proper. These can be seen clearly with Asch's conformity studies (top picture; normative social influence) and Sherif's conformity studies (bottom picture, informational social influence).

Induced Compliance and Attitude Change (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

•Participants conducted boring tasks (e.g., turning pegs on a peg board for an hour). •Then, some participants were paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant that the tasks were very interesting (i.e., tell a lie). •Then, they were asked to evaluate the experiment (say what they really thought). RESULTS: no payment: -0.4 lie 1$: 1.3 lie 20$: -0.1 lie _________________________________________________ Results (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959) •When participants lied but were payed $1, they reported MORE enjoyment - When they lied and said study was interesting, there was dissonance between their attitude and action. - 1$ was not enough justification to rationalize this conflict so in an effort to restore consistency, they convinced themselves that they must have enjoyed the experiment ---They changed their attitude to match their actions •When participants lied and were payed $20, they reported LESS enjoyment in the study - 20$ was enough justification to rationalize lying (a behavior that contradicts their actions) and avoid dissonance

Matching Hypothesis

•People tend to become involved romantically (seriously) with others who are equivalent in physical attractiveness •Matching on physical attractiveness is predictive of successful relationships and marriage -There is a term within this area of interpersonal psychological research dubbed "the matching hypothesis" -The idea is that people become romantically involved with others who are equivalent in physical attractiveness -The following are some "popular culture" examples to visually demonstrate the "matching hypothesis"

Couple Exchange Assets

•Personal ads regularly exhibit this exchange of assets •Men who advertise their wealth and education receive the most responses to personal ads •While women who advertise their youth and looks are the most successful -In certain cases, where there does not seem to be a "match" in terms of physical attractiveness (or age, for that matter) there may be other things at work -Evolutionary psychological theory suggests that couples exchange assets... ---For instance, there is data which examines what types of info is shared by men and women in personal ads ------Men who advertise wealth and education revceive the most responses to personal ads ------Women who adevertise youth & looks receive most responses

Disposable razor study

•Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann (1983) •Advertisement for disposable razors •3 IVS: ---Involvement in issue (high or low) ---Argument quality (strong or weak) ---Type of endorser (celebrity or not) -A classic study done by Petty, Cacioppo, and colleagues testing the ELM focused on how participants reacted to different types of advertisements Involvement in issue: HIGH: Your opinions on this matter WILL INFLUENCE national advertisement LOW: We are interested in your opinions (NO mention that it will affect national ad) Argument Quality: STRONG: Speaks about the research and development that went into creating this 'high tech' razor blade WEAK: No detailed info on the R & D; mentions things like "floats on water" ___________________________________________ RESULTS: Low involvement: same for strong and weak arguments High involvement: way larger for strong than weak -Higher #s here indicate more positive attitudes towards the razors -When there was LOW involvement the type of argument (strong vs. weak) did NOT matter regarding attitude toward razor -However, when there was HIGH involvement the type of argument had an effect on positive attitudes toward razor such that strong argument condition had significantly more positive attitudes toward razors than weak argument condition. -Take away: Demonstrates that central route processing is best for persuasion when people are "involved" in the issue __________________________________________ Low involved: way larger for celebrity than non-celeb High involved: same for both. -Higher #s here indicate more positive attitudes towards the razors -When there was LOW involvement whether there was a celebrity or not had an effect on liking the razor such that presence of celebrity resulted in more positive attitude toward the razor than when there was no celebrity present -However, when there was NO IMPACT of celebrity (vs. not) when people were highly involved in the issue -Take away: Demonstrates that peripheral route processing is best for persuasion when people have LOW involvement in issue ________________________________________ TAKE-AWAYS Low Involved --> Peripheral Route •Persuaded by celebrity (not argument quality) High Involved --> Central Route •Persuaded by strong arguments (not celebrity)

Influences on Attraction: physical attractiveness

•Physical attractiveness -We like and make more positive judgments about physically attractive people than unattractive people - There is research suggesting that we make positive evaluations and judgments of people who are deemed to be physically attractive

To Whom: Features of the Audience

•Prior attitudes (or are older) •Need for cognition (Cacioppo et al., 1996) ---The degree to which person likes to think deeply about things ---Higher need for cognition à persuaded by high quality arguments -If audience has pre-existing attitudes (or are older) may be harder to persuade -Level of intelligence also may have an impact. People who have "higher" levels of intelligence may require more information to persuade them

Influences on Attraction: Proximity

•Proximity -We become friends with, date, marry, people who are nearby, spatially (or functionally) closer to us •Proximity works because of familiarity -Familiarity affects liking •Zajonc (1968) -Mere exposure à Liking -So to make it crystal clear, proximity (according to Festinger and colleagues, 1950) works because of familiarity -Familiarity leads to more liking -Work by Robert Zajonc (1968) on the "mere exposure effect" helps us understand the familiarity à liking conjecture

Factors Affecting Love & Attraction

•Proximity •Physical attractiveness •Similarity

Reactance Theory (Brehm, 1966)

•Reactance is a motivational reaction to offers, persons, rules, or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. •Reactance occurs when a person feels that someone or something is taking away his or her choices or limiting the range of alternatives. - Another form of social influence (first investigated by KU Social Psychologist, Jack Brehm) is called psychological reactance. - Reactance is what happens when we experience a motivational reaction to rules, people, or regulations that threaten or eliminate our freedoms. For example, if I tell you "don't look in that closet," you are probably going to want to know what is in the closet! This is also sometimes called reverse psychology. _______________________________________ How else does social influence work? - Social influence can work in a number of ways. Another notable way (shown in research also conducted at KU) is through famous individuals or government figures. In this case, Crandall, Miller, & White found that after Donald Trump was elected to the presidency in the U.S., participants thought that it was more acceptable to be prejudiced towards groups that Trump targeted during his election campaign. - The researchers conclude that the 2016 election seems to have changed social norms in America that favored the expression of certain prejudices, which explains the increase in bias-related incidences (hate crimes) that followed closely after the election.

What is a Successful Relationship?

•Relationship Longevity -A relationship that does NOT end in a break-up •Relationship Quality/Relationship Satisfaction -A relationship that fulfills the needs of *both* partners _____________________________________________ Marital Satisfaction Over Time (Kurdek, 1999) -Take a look at the following graph and data pulled from research by Kurdek (1999) on marital satisfaction over time (N=522 couples at year 1and 93 couples at year 10) -Q: What do you notice? ---Relationship satisfaction starts out pretty high in the beginning of a marriage ---There is a drop off in marital satisfaction over most years in a marriage ---There appears to be a precipitous drop off in satisfaction in the first 4 years ---The perceptions are relatively similar across husband and wife w/ husbands having slightly lower satisfaction compared to women BUT fairly similar

Wicker (1969)

•Reviewed research on the attitude-behavior link: ---The two were usually positively related, but typically small (average r = .15) •Evidence for weak relationships between attitudes and behavior prompted 2 responses: ---Attitudes are irrelevant junk ---Attitudes are related to behavior, but the relationship is more complex -Wicker (1969) did an early meta-analysis of the literature on the attitudes and behavior link and found a small, positive relationship; that is, it was not a definitive and clear finding that attitudes predict behavior with great fidelity.

Investment Model of Relationships

•Rusbult (1980) •The investment model of relationships defines investments as anything that people put into relationships that would be lost if they left it •The greater the investment, the less likely people are to leave a relationship, even if the satisfaction is low and other alternatives look promising •Commitment: -Long-term orientation toward a relationship; desire to maintain the relationship -Carol Rusbult (1980) described relationships as something we "invest" in and that these investments would be things we would lose if we left these relationships -She makes the argument that the GREATER investment someone makes in a relationship the LESS likely someone is to leave the relationship even if satisfaction is low -A key term within this investment model is the idea of "commitment" -Commitment: a desire to maintain the relationship _____________________________________________ •Investment Theory -A person's commitment to a relationship is a function of... A. Relationship Satisfaction -Costs, rewards, and comparison level B. Investments in the relationship, and C. Comparison Level for alternatives their chances for having a better relationship with someone else Rusbult proposes that COMMITMENT in a relationship is a function of the following: -Relationship satisfaction ---What are the COSTS associated with being in the relationship? ------For example, they do not satisfy my emotional and/or physical needs ---What are the REWARDS of being in the relationship? ------They have a great sense of humor and they are always making me laugh ---Comparison level ------Being in a relationship with them now is not as fun or satisfying as when we first met -Investments in the relationship ---These can be many things including: having kids, having joint bank account, co-owning a house, etc. -Comparison level for alternatives ---Can you perceive yourself to be more satisfied in a different relationship? ____________________________________________ -The following is a visual depiction of all the elements we spoke about in the previous slide. -In Rusbult's model, in order to be satisfied in one's relationship the rewards must outweigh the costs and the comparison level should be close to zero or not have changed too much -Commitment in a relationship is arrived at by levels of satisfaction, low comparison levels for alternatives, and relatively moderate or high levels of investments ________________________________________ Rewards - costs - comparison level --> satisfaction - comparison level of alternatives + investments --> commitment

Influences on Attraction: similarity

•Similarity Matters -We like and evaluate positively people who are similar to ourselves, and dislike (avoid) people who are dissimilar -Similar people are judged as more intelligent, informed, moral, and better adjusted than people who are dissimilar to us -Why? ---Arouses positive affect - the familiar ---Social validation via social comparison ---Easier communication/smoother interactions ---Similar others have qualities we like -We evaluate people who are similar to us MORE positively than people who are dissimilar to our selves -We like similar people to our selves because: ---(1) the familiar arouses positive affect (recall the mere exposure effect) ---(2) we are socially validated by similar others (vs. distinct others) ---(3) it affords us smoother communication with others IF they are similar to us ---(4) they have qualities we like. - Holds across age groups, education levels, and across cultures __________________________________________ •Proportion of Similarity -Number of specific topics on which two people express similar views divided by the total number of topics discussed RESULTS: 0: 6.62 0.25: 7.98 0.5: 9.34 0.75: 10.7 1.00: 12.06 -The y-axis -- higher #s indicate more attraction toward the other person -The x-axis goes from left (low proportion of similarity) to right (high proportion of similarity) -As there is a HIGHER proportion of similarity to the other, the MORE we find them attractive

Sherif's Autokinetic Effect Study

•Sometimes people conform to others more consciously (informational social influence), as shown by Sherif (1936) •Sherif was interested in how groups influence the behavior of individuals by shaping how reality is perceived -Sometimes people conform to others more consciously, as shown by Sherif (1936) - Sherif was interested in how groups influence the behavior of individuals by shaping how reality is perceived - Sherif's experiment was built around what's called the autokinetic illusion—the sense that a stationary point of light in a completely dark environment is moving. - Sherif thought that other people in a dark room would serve as a social frame of reference that would influence a person's perceptions of the light's movement. In other words, he thought that a target person in a room with a few fake participants, or "confederates" would be influenced by the presence of the other people in the room. Sherif thought that if the other people said that the light moved (regardless of whether it actually did), the target participant would as well. ________________________________________________ 1. •Sherif started by putting participants onto a dark room alone 2. •He presented them with the light and over a series of many trials, he asked them how far the light had moved (when it really hadn't moved at all) 3. •His next step was to bring several other participants (confederates) into the room with the target participant and have them all call out their estimates 4. •Sherif found that people's estimates tended to converge over time toward the estimates of the confederates - Sherif found that people change their estimates of how far the light moved because of the information provided by the people around them in the room! -Those who thought the line had moved very little increased their estimates - Those who thought the line had moved a great deal decreased their estimates - This was evidence of informational social influence—the idea that people use others around them as a source of information regarding what is correct, which leads to conformity.

Where there's smoke...(Latane & Darley, 1968)

•Study about "problems involved in life at an urban university" •Sit in a "waiting room" before begin actual study •3 conditions: Ps sit alone, Ps sit with 2 confederates, or 3 real participants •Smoke starts to fill the room •How fast do people notice? ____________________________________________ RESULTS: % who notice smoke within 5 seconds Alone: 65% With others: 30% % who report the smoke Alone: 75% w/ 2 confederates: 10% 3 real ps: 38% ____________________________________________ Does Smoke Mean Fire? •Subjects who reported the smoke... ---Thought the smoke looked somewhat "strange" ---Did not know whether it was dangerous BUT it was unusual enough that it warranted examination ---"I wasn't sure whether it was a fire but it looked like something was wrong." ---"I thought it might be steam, but it seemed like a good idea to check it out." •Subjects who did NOT report the smoke... ---Uniformly rejected the idea that it was a fire ---Interpreting the smoke as a non-dangerous event ---"Smoke was steam or air-conditioning vapors" ---"It was 'smog' purposely introduced to simulate an urban environment" ---"Smoke was a 'truth gas' filtered into the room to induce them to answer the questionnaire correctly" •Subjects did NOT think this interpretation was biased by having others around, but it was. •Others defined the situation as safe. •Subjects claimed that they paid little or no attention to the reactions of other people in the room

Conformity

•Tendency to change perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms •Norms ---Do as the situation prescribes ---Don't want to stand out or be rejected •Candid Camera ---Facing the rear in an elevator ---Taking off one's hat in the elevator -One of the key aspects that this video highlights—for present purposes—is CONFORMITY. -Conformity is defined as changing one's opinions or behaviors in line with that of the perceived group norms -In the video, conformity is signaled when the unwitting participant changes their behavior (e.g., facing the back of the elevator) to "fit in" with the group norms (i.e., everyone is facing the back of the elevator) -Note that there is NO overt request from any of the people in the elevator; the group norms are signaled by the unanimity of behavior of the other people in the elevator

Automatic mimicry

•Tendency to reflexively mimic the posture, mannerisms, expressions, etc. of those around us •Chartrand & bargh (1999) •Participants (P) took part in 2 10-min sessions w/ another p ---Describe photos from popular magazines ---Other p was a confederate (c) - different c in each session •In one session c frequently rubbed her/his face •In the other session c continuously shook her/his foot •Videotaped the p's behavior RESULTS: Confederate rubs face: more likely to rub face Confederate shakes foot: more likely to shake foot

Models of Persuasion

•The likelihood of elaboration will be determined by an individual's motivation and ability to evaluate the argument being presented. •Dual process models of persuasion: - The focus of this week is the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. - The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion is a dual process theory describing the change of attitudes. Faced with a persuasive message, an audience will process it using either a high or low level of elaboration. - The ELM was developed by social psychologists Richard E. Petty and John Cacioppo at the University of Chicago in 1980. - The model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli, why they are used, and their outcomes on attitude change, and more specifically, how attitudes are shaped, formed, and reinforced by persuasive arguments. - There are two routes of persuation: The central and peripheral

Communal & exchange relationships(Clark & Mills, 1979, 1993)

•Two fundamentally different types of relationships arise in different contexts and are governed by different norms •*Communal relationships* -Feelings of responsibility for other's well-being; expect their relationship to be long term -A sense of "oneness" and a family-like sharing of common identity -Giving occurs in response to other's needs with no expectation of repayment -Examples: family and close friends -A distinction is made between "communal relationships" and "exchange relationships" *Communal relationships* -Giving occurs when the other needs something WITHOUT any expectation of receiving back payment/favor *Exchange relationships* -Trade based and often short term -Person feels no special responsibility for one another's well-being -Give to the other to repay debts or in anticipation of receiving payment in the future; equity and reciprocity concerns -Examples: interactions w/ sales people, workers & supervisors in business -A distinction is made between "communal relationships" and "exchange relationships" ---Communal relationships ------Giving occurs when the other needs something WITHOUT any expectation of receiving back payment/favor ---Exchange relationships ------Giving occurs to repay debts or with an EXPECTATION of receiving payment in the future _______________________________________________ •Clark & Mills argue that societies differ in which approach—communal or exchange—they generally prefer •People in East Asian and Latin American societies are inclined to take a communal approach to many situations •People in European countries are inclined to take an exchange approach to many situations

Fear Appeals: Can They Induce Change?

•Yes, when fear is mild (so defenses not evoked) AND paired with information about what to do •No, when fear is high and people feel threatened, they may react defensively: ---argue against threat ---question evidence, or ---deny applicability to the self -The research seems to point to that fear appeals work best when it is "mild" AND it is paired with info about what to do. -If the ad is to threatening people "tune out" and the ad becomes LESS effective in inducing change

Mere exposure effect

•Zajonc (1968) •Mere Exposure Effect -The more often a person is exposed to some stimulus, the more they like it, particularly if they are unaware that sheer number of exposures is the cause of liking -Participants report greater liking for stimuli seen more often (even if presented subliminally) -Individual's prefer their "mirror image" BUT friends prefer their "true" image -The mere exposure effect proposes that the more someone is exposed to a stimulus, the more they will like it (especially if they are UNAWARE of the # of times they have been exposed to it) -There is data, for example, demonstrating that people prefer a photo of their face that is the "mirror image" compared to their "true image" (that is, the face that the rest of the world sees) -Friends, on the other hand, prefer the face photo that is the "true image" versus the "mirror image" -WHY? Because you and I are most familiar with the representation of our own faces that are similar to the face we see in the mirror when we wake up in the morning, brush our teeth, etc. ______________________________________________ Why Does Mere Exposure Cause Liking? •Classical conditioning -Repeated exposure with NO aversive consequence signals safety •BUT mere exposure can cause disliking too -Repeated exposure to something or someone that's aversive -More opportunities for their annoying behaviors to irritate you -Moreover, the mere exposure effect suggests that repeated exposure to a stimuli with NO negative/bad consequences suggests safety—which is something we typically like -It should be noted, however, that mere exposure can lead to disliking in situations where someone or some stimuli is aversive from the start -Repeated exposures to something that is aversive from the start has the capacity to annoy the heck out of you over those repeated exposures